Skip to main content

Full text of "The influence of antivivisection on character"

See other formats




\ c 

The Influence of Antivivisec- 
tion on Character 

W. W. KEEN, M.D. 



Issued by the Bureau on Protection of Medical Research 

of the Council on Health and Public Instruction of 

the American Medical Association 

"The humanity which would prevcDt human suffering is a deeper 
and truer humanity than the humanity which would save pain or 
death to animals." — Charles W. Eliot. 


American Medical Association 

Five Hundred and Thirty-Five Dearborn Avexle 



Pamphlet I. — Vaccination and Its Relation to Animal Experi- 
mentation, by Dr. J. F. Schaniberg, Philadelphia. 56 pp. Illustrated. 

Pamphlet II. — Animal Experimentation and Tuberculosis, by Dr. 
E. L. Trudeau, Saranac Lake, N. Y. 16 pages. 

Pamphlet III. — The Role of Animal Experimentation in the Diag- 
nosis of Disease, by Dr. M. J. Rosenau, Washington, D. C. 8 pages. 

Pamphlet IV. — Animal Experimentation and Cancer, by Dr. 
James Ewing, New York. 12 pages. 

Pamphlet V. — The Ethics of Animal Experimentation, by Prof. 
J. R. Angell, Chicago. 8 pages. 

Pamphlet VI. — Animal Experimentation : The Protection It 
Affords to Animals Themselves and Its Value to the Live-Stock 
Industry, by Dr. V. A. Moore, Itbaca, N. Y. 20 pages. 

Pamphlet VII. — Rabies and Its Relation to Animal Experimenta- 
tion, by Dr. L. Frothingham, Boston. 16 pages. 

Pamphlet VIII. — Importance of Animal Experimentation in the 
Development of Knowledge of Dysentery, Cholera and Typhoid 
Fever, by Dr. M. W. Richardson, Boston. S pages. 

Pamphlet IX. — Fruits of Medical Research with Aid of Anes- 
thesia and Asepticism, by Dr. Charles W. Eliot, Boston. 16 pages. 

Pamphlet X. — Animal Experimentation in Relation to Our 
Knowledge of Secretions, Especially Internal Secretions, by Dr. S. J. 
Meltzer, New York. 32 pages. 

Pamphlet XL — Animal Experimentation and Protozoan Tropical 
Diseases, by Dr. Harry T. Marshall, Charlottesville, Va. 20 pages. 

Pamphlet XII. — Modern Antiseptic Surgery and the Role of 
Experiment in Its Discovery and Development, by Dr. W. W. Keen, 
Philadelphia. 20 pages. > 

Pamphlet XIII. — Animal Experimentation in Relation to Prac- 
tical Medical Knowledge of the Circulation, by Dr. Joseph Erlanger, 
Madison, Wis. 40 pages. 

Pamphlet XIV. — What Vivisection Has Done for Humanity, by 
Dr. W. W. Keen, Philadelphia. 16 pages. 

Pamphlet XV.- — The Relation of Animal Experimentation to Our 
Knowledge of Plague, by George W. McCoy, San Francisco. 12 pages. 

Pamphlet XVI. — Medical Control of Vivisection, by Dr. Walter 
B. Cannon, Boston. 8 pages. 

Pamphlet XVII. — Immunology : A Medical Science Developed 
Through Animal Experimentation, by Dr. Frederick P. Gay, Berke- 
ley. Cal. 20 pages. 

Pamphlet XVIII. — Obstetrics and Animal Experimentation, by 
1 Dr. J. Whitridge Williams, Baltimore. 36 pages. 

Pamphlet XIX. — Some Characteristics of Antivivisection Litera- 
ture, by Dr. Walter B. Cannon, Boston. 16 pages, 
j Pamfhlet XX. — The Value of Animal Experimentation as Illus- 
! trated by Recent Advances in the Study of Syphilis, by Dr. J. W. 
Churchman, Baltimore. 24 pages. 

Pamphlet XXI. — Animal Experimentation and Epidemic Cerebro- 
; spinal Meningitis, by Dr. C. H. Dunn, Boston. 28 pages. 

Pamphlet XXII. — Animal Experimentation and Diphtheria,, by 
Dr. W. H. Park, New York. 19 pages. 

Pamphlet XXIII. — Animal Experimentation and Its Benefits to 
Mankind, by Dr. Walter B. Cannon, Boston. 24 pages. 

Pamphlet XXIV. — The Influence of Antivivisection on Character, 
by Dr. W. W. Keen, Philadelphia. 43 pages. 

- PRICES =^=== 

i Pamphlets I, XIII and XXIV: 

1 Copy $ .08 

5 Copies 35 

10 Copies 65 

23 Copies 1.25 

Other pamphlets of the series. 

1 Copy $ .04 

5 Copies 15 

10 Copies 25 

25 Copies 50 

All sent post-paid. Assorted if desired. 

Any 10 different pamphlets sent for 30 cents ; 24 for 60 cents. 

Stamps acceptable for amounts under fifty cents. 

• 35 Dearborn Avenue Chicago, Illinois 

The Influence of Antivivisection on 

W. W. KEEJf, M.D. 


l/yCVZ^ - 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2012 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 


W. W. KEEN, M.D. 


"In this controversy [vivisection] there should be no bitter- 
ness. . . . Do not let us attempt to browbeat or call 
names. . . . Vivisection tends to weaken character. . . 
Nothing which hurts the character can be right." — Rev. Dr. 
Floyd W. Tomkins, President of the American Antivivisection 
Society, in the Ladies' Home Journal, March, 1910. 

I accept the test proposed by Dr. Tomkins, and. quoted 
in the above motto, "Nothing which hurts the character 
can be right." Let us, therefore, stud}' what is the 
effect of antivivisection on the character of its advocates. 


The most violent and vindictive passions have been 
aroused and fostered, especially among women — the 
very flower of our modern civilization. Let us see 
whether they have shown "bitterness" or "called names." 
I have rejected much oral testimony I could use and 
have drawn my evidence from only a very small portion 
of the literature at my disposal. 

Herewith I reproduce (Fig. 1) the photograph of a 
remarkable letter which contains an asserted prayer to 
the Deity calling down curses by "a dozen women'' on 
my long-since sainted mother. It needs no comment 
from me save that the "horror" mentioned in this letter 
was excited by an article which I published in the 
Ladies' Home Journal for April, 1910. in which I 
recited a few of the benefits to humanity which had 
resulted from vivisection. The only clue even to the 
place from which the letter comes is the postmark. • 

* An address read before the Surgical Section of the Suffolk Dis- 
trict Medical Society. Boston, March 20, 1912. Reprinted by the 
kind permission of the editor and the publisher from the Boston 
Medical and Surgical Journal, May 2 and 9, 1912. 




























tj O! 






o o 





aj l— ' 




~ s 






C £- 












O p 










S> u 













— Cj 




O o 







e l 







6 ej 





c: ■(-> 









K ^ 





"1 — 






3 M 











a a 

«M 4-> 




































cj cy 

c — 












■M Olj 

















a a 





"H. 13 






C3 CU 
















o o 





~ c 






1 ^ 















fee O 






*C c 













Let me quote another earlier anonymous letter I have 
before me. This is from Philadelphia. Instead of the 
usual address "Dear Sir/' it begins, "You Fiend." I 
had not then been promoted to "Arch-fiend" in Satan's 
Hierarchy. The writer exclaims, "Oh, that you all 
could be put through the same torture that you inflict 
on these helpless ones." As I am not a vivisectionist 
this ardent wish fails to terrify. I am an advocate of 
vivisection because I know how greatly it has helped 
me during all my professional life in saving life and 
lessening suffering. 1 

If two letters will not convince, here is a third. This, 
from Baltimore, also the result of the same article, was 
from a writer who had the courage to sign her name 
and address. 

"You would appear even the more fiendish on account 
of your superior intelligence. . . . The future of a 
vivisectionist is a veritable hell. You, I understand, 
are a man advanced in years [the calendar, alas ! seems 
to justify this shocking statement] soon to go before 
the bar of justice. Can you meet your God with the 
terrible cries ringing in your ears of these creatures, our 
helpless brothers, made by his hand, that you have drawn 
and quartered? How they must haunt you. . . . 
When your time comes to die, every cry of pain and 
anguish that you have been the cause of producing in 
these helpless creatures will follow you to the depths 

1. In the American Journal of the Medical Sciences for July, 
1865, p. 67, Dr. S. Weir Mitchell, the late Dr. Morehouse and I pub- 
lished a paper on the "Antagonism of Atropia and Morphia.'' based 
on observations and experiments in the Army Hospital for Injuries 
and Diseases of the Nervous System. The reason which caused us to 
make this investigation was tbat we desired to find better means for 
"soothing the pain of those terrible cases of neuralgia" following 
gunshot-wounds of large nerves. These are accurately described in 
the paper as causing "anguish" and "agony" — no word could be 
too strong. Accordingly, in our efforts we tried a number of com- 
mon and Fome uncommon drugs, and finally found that morphin (the 
active principle of opium) was the best remedy and yet had many 
disadvantages. Ultimately we found that by combining with it a 
certain amount of atropin (the active principle of belladonna) we 
obtained the best results. The facts discovered in our investigations 
have long since become merged in the common knowledge of the 
profession, and standard tablets with different proportions of the 
two drugs are manufactured and used all over the world. Most of 
our patients operated on (entirely by hypodermic injections) were 
sorely in need of relief. A few were convalescents. In all cases we 
avoided telling them what drug was being used, for every one knows 
how imagination, fear or other emotion would alter the rate of the 
pulse or of the breathing. Not one man was injured in the least. 
Not one ever complained. Many thousands of human beings have 
been greatly benefited and many lives have been saved through the 
knowledge thus obtained. 

I have expressly mentioned these facts in some detail because we 
have been attacked in their pamphlets by the antivivksectionists for 
these experiments, which are described as "human vivisection." 


of hell." Yet I have "drawn and quartered" not even 
so much as a mouse. 

But this same lady tells me that she had survived one 
of the most serious abdominal operations that could be 
clone — a hysterectomy. This operation was so perilous 
that until Lister had devised the antiseptic method it 
was never even thought possible, and its success at the 
present day is due chiefly to experiment on animals. 
The writer of the letter, therefore, is herself a witness 
to the benefit of vivisection. 

Later on she says, "If they would only use vivisectors 
for their experiments, it would soon be considered 
unnecessary." Her gentlest wish, therefore, is for 
human vivisection, and doubtless "without anesthetics." 
Per contra, in the newspapers of May 6, 1911, a dispatch 
states that seventeen medical students had offered them- 
selves for experimental inoculation with cancer, an offer 
which was, of course, refused, as animals can be used. 

A curious "statement in the letter is, "I understand 
the Eockefeller Institute has had four or five of its 
laboratories burned, the animals destroyed, rather than 
have them fall into the bands of these wretches, and if 
this thing were more widely known, every medical college 
in the country would be razed to the ground and the 
doctors tarred and feathered." The insurance companies, 
I am quite certain, have never heard of the one laboratory 
which the Eockefeller Institute possesses having been 
burned. But what a strange exhibition of kindness it 
is to gloat over the fact that the poor animals in these 
supposed laboratories had been roasted to death "without 

If three instances are not sufficient, here is a fourth 
— a signed letter from Chicago. Beferring to one case 
which I had published as an illustration of the value 
of vivisection in saving human life, she says, "My 
sympathy for the parents of that young man . . . 
would have been deep, but not so keen as for a mother 
dog who saw her puppy tortured to death on a dissecting 
table. . . . Even if you did save a man's life, was 
it worth while?" (Italics in the letter!) This lady 
wrongly assumes that the puppy was "tortured to death," 
i. e., without anesthetics. This, I am glad to say, is not 
true, as I shall show later on. To her question, "Was it 
worth while?" I can only say, "Ask his father and 

And this is the ennobling influence of antivivisection ! 

A fifth communication is from a lady who was per- 
sonally acquainted with myself and my family. She 
sent me a pamphlet with some good advice, ending with 
the terse injunction. "Do God's work, not the Devil's/' 
and had the courage to sign her name. 

A sixth lady sent me (anonymously) an article from 
one of our magazines, with many marginal annotations 
and much underscoring. From this I select a few 

"Millions of people regard him [the vivisector] with 
loathing, and shudder with horror at his name. . . . 
Frightful as the sufferings of this tortured dog must be. 
I would rather be in its place than yours when your 
soul is summoned to its final judgment to receive 
judgment without mercy. [This seems to be a favorite 
threat of my correspondents.] May God so deal with 
every fiend incarnate who has thus tortured defenseless 

creatures All the demons and fiends do 

not dwell in Hades. Some are made in the image of 
God, but have hearts blacker and more cruel than the 
arch-fiend himself. These are the vivisectors who 
'benefit' mankind." 

I have received very many more such letters — usually 
anonymous. These six may serve as samples. 

I would willingly accept the supposition of unbalanced 
minds as an explanation and palliation for such letters 
but for their number and for the fact that they so 
entirely coincide with almost all the "repulsive litera- 
ture" (to use Lord Coleridge's words) published by the 
various antivivisection societies. 

A brief search through only a part of my file of this 
antivivisection literature enables me to cull the following 
evidences of a similar debasing violence and vindictive- 
ness. The list could easily be extended. 

"The art of torture has been carried to a perfection 
which the devildoms of Spain in the old days of the 
Inquisition could not equal in ingenuity or pitilessness." 

'"Vivisection is the anguish, the hell of science. All 
the cruelty which the human or rather the inhuman 
heart is capable of inflicting is in this one word. Below 
it there is no depth. This word lies like a coiled serpent 
at the bottom of the abyss." 

"Animals are dissected alive — usually without the 
use of anesthetics." 

"The vivisector keeps his victim alive while he cuts 
it up." 


"Vivisection founded on cruelty, supported by false- 
hood, and practiced for selfish ends." 

"The vivisector is less valuable to the world than the 
animals he destroys." 

"A thing I know to be damnable whatever the results." 

"An organized system of barbarity." 

"Vivisector and criminal become interchangeable 

"Cowards who perpetrate hideous crimes." 

"Experiments on living animals is a system of long- 
protracted agonies, the very recollection of which is 
enough to make the soul sick as if with a whiff and an 
after-taste of a moral sewer." 

"Impious barbarity of the vivisector." 

"All other forms of sinful cruelty are comparatively 
trifling compared with the horrors of vivisection." 

"Deliberate dabbling in blood and agony. " 

"Cruelty the inevitable and odious spawn of secret 

"Blood-stained hands of the grim tormentors." 

"Bloody mass of agony." 

"Devilish inventions of unbalanced mentality." 

At a hearing before a committee of the Legislature 
of Pennsylvania, I heard myself and others who were 
advocating the humane work of vivisection called 
"hyenas" by a woman. 

Briefer descriptive terms are as follows : 

scientific hells 
osgj of cruelty 
halls of agony 
inhuman devil 
devils incarnate 
scientific murder 
abominable sin 
devilish science 
fiends incarnate 
damnably mean 
master demon 
diabolical vivisection 

temples of torment, 
cruelty of cruelties 
infernal work 
hellish wrong- 
devil's work 
lust of cruelty 
scientific assassination 
torture of the innocent 
black art of vivisection 

human monsters 

Antivivisection writers nearly always state, assume or 
imply that all experiments are "tortures," i. e., that 
anesthetics are not used. This is wholly erroneous. 

In Great Britain, where all experiments are returned 
to the government, the following table for 1906 (the 
latest I happen to have) will show how utterly inde- 
fensible is such an assumption. It is a fair presumption 
that about the same average exists in the United States. 

Per cent. 

Inoculations, etc., not involving any operation 93.96 

Animals killed under anesthetics 3.44 

Animals allowed to recover from anesthetic but nothing 
likely to cause pain and no further operation allowed 
without anesthetic ' 2.60 


In other words, only twenty-six animals o'ut of 1,000 
could by any possibility have suffered any pain, and 
very few of these any serious pain. Is this the 
torture and agony so constantly harped on? 2 

Many of the instances cited in antivivisection litera- 
ture are taken from researches — such as Magendie's — 
which were made before anesthetics were discovered, 
over sixty-live years ago. 

The rest in which real cruelty was inflicted, and 
which if done now would be condemned by all modern 
research workers as freely as by the antivivisectionists 
themselves, were done almost wholly on the Continent, 
and often by persons who are now dead. In discussing 
vivisection to-day, these should be excluded, or their 
dates and countries indicated, for the public, ignorant of 
medical history, is misled into supposing that these 
persons are living and practicing these methods to-day 
and in America. 

In one of the anonymous replies to my paper on the 
"Misstatements of Antivivisectionists," I am represented 
as the apologist and advocate of experiments of which 
twice over at the Senate Committee hearing and again in 
my letter to Mr. Brown I had expressed my utter dis- 
approval. I am always willing to face a truthful charge, 
but it is a hopeless task to meet untruthful charges, 
especially when the author is ashamed of his own name. 

"Hell at Close Bange" is the title given by Miss Ellen 
Snow to a leaflet dealing with the work of the Bockefel- 
ler Institute. One would scarcely expect such a fierce 
heat from so frosty a name. 

2. Since this address was delivered the report of the British 
Royal Commission on Vivisection, on which the antivivisectionists 
were represented, has appeared. One of their unanimous con- 
clusions (page 20) is as follows: 

"U'e desire to state that the harrowing descriptions and illustra- 
tions of operations inflicted on animals, which are freely circulated 
by post, advertisement or otherwise, are in many cases calculated to 
mislead the public, so far as they suggest that the animals in ques- 
tion were not under an anesthetic. To represent that animals sub- 
jected to experiments in this country are wantonly tortured would, 
in our opinion, be absolutely false." 

This clear statement should end this calumny. 


At this institute, by experiments on twenty-five 
monkeys and 100 guinea-pigs, most of which animals 
recovered, has been discovered a serum that has brought 
the former death-rate of cerebrospinal meningitis of 75 
or 90 per cent, down to 20 per cent, and less. Is it 
because of this beneficent work that it is called "Hell" ? 

At this institute has been discovered a means of 
transfusion ' of blood that has already saved scores of 
human lives. Is this the reason for calling it "Hell"? 

At this institute a method of criss-crossing arteries 
and veins, which almost always run alongside of each 
other, has been discovered by which impending gangrene 
has been prevented. Does this make it a "Hell" ? 

At this institute the cause and the cure of infantile 
paralysis are being sought. Are such investigations 
carried on in "Hell"? 

Miss Snow in this same leaflet expresses in italics 
her horror at the idea of the proposition of the institute 
"to build a hospital where the experiments may be con- 
tinued on human beings." It may be of interest to her 
and also to others to know that this hospital was opened 
in October, 1910, and that the public, undeterred by her 
horror, have thronged to it in such numbers that there 
have not been beds enough for the several hundreds of 
disappointed applicants. 

An editorial in the Journal of Zoophily 3 records a 
gift to this Eockefeller Institute, "an institution in 
New York where vivisection should be practiced with 
the idea of achieving as great an advance as possible in 
the war of science against human suffering," and adds, 
"but the gift only fanned into fury the opposition of 
the women to experiments on living animals, no matter 
how great the anticipated benefit." Could cruel passion 
be better expressed ? 

Can a cause which so seriously injures the character 
of its advocates that they indulge in this prolific vocabu- 
lary of vituperation by any possibility have an uplifting 
influence ? It eminently fulfils the proposed test — it 
"hurts the character and, therefore, cannot be right." 

Are those who give loose rein to such passion fitted to 
form a sound and sane judgment on the subject about 
which they write? This is especially true when the 
matter is one so technical as anatomic, physiologic, 
chemical, pathologic and surgical investigations as to 

3. Jour. Zoophily, January, 1909, p. 2. 


which they cannot be expected to know and, in fact, 
do not know anything. Even relatively few medical 
men are fitted by temperament and training to act as 
censors of such researches, much less those ignorant of 

I believe that much of the passion shown in the above 
quotations is the result of ignorance. Most of the 
attacks on vivisection, as I have said, assume or even 
state categorically that anesthetics are not used. Saving 
in the very rare cases in which the use of anesthetics 
would entirely frustrate the experiment, anesthetics are 
always used. This is done not only for reasons of 
humanity, but also because the struggles of a suffering 
animal would make delicate and difficult operations 
absolutely impossible, to say nothing of the danger of 
injury to the operator. 

The always-quoted opinion of Professor Bigelow was 
founded on what he had seen at the Veterinary School 
at Alfort, France, in the preanesthetic days. Many 
absolutely false statements are made that anesthetics 
were not used in certain specified experiments, whereas 
the experimenters have expressly stated that anesthetics 
were used. Of such misstatements by antivivisection 
authors I shall give some startling instances later. It 
•is no wonder that the public has been thus misled. 
"Cutting up men and women alive" is an accurate 
description of every surgical operation, but we all know 
that while in comparatively few reports of surgical 
operations it is expressly stated that an anesthetic was 
used, such use "goes without saying." 

One of the most frequent^ antivivisection statements 
is that "incomplete" or "slight" or "light" anesthesia 
means that the animal is fully able to feel pain and that 
when the eye resents a touch or there is muscular move- 
ment following any act which would be painful when 
one is not anesthetized, pain is actually being inflicted. 
Mr. Coleridge says (Question 10,387 in his testimony 
before the Second Eoyal Commission on Vivisection), 
"What does 'anesthetized' mean? It means 'without 
feeling.' You cannot be slightly without feeling. You 
either feel pain or you do not." 

Very recently when I had nitrous oxid gas given 
several times to a lady to bend a stiff elbow she struggled 
and writhed so hard as almost to throw herself out of 
the dentist's chair onto the floor. Yet she was never 
conscious of the slightest pain. In other words, while 


the motor nervous centers responded to my forcible 
bending movements and caused violent muscular strug- 
gles, the perceptive nervous centers felt no pain. But 
any spectator would surely have said that she was being 
"tortured." This is only one of hundreds of similar 
cases I have had; all other surgeons have had similar 

In modern laboratory researches, ether or other 
anesthetics are almost always given. Extremely few 
exceptions occur, and then only with the consent of the 
director in each specific case. The actual conditions at 
the present day are well shown by the rules in force in 
practically all American laboratories of research. These 
rules have been in operation for over thirty years in 
one case and for more than ten years in others. In 
most laboratories in which students work, and where 
they are absolutely under the control of the director, 
the only animal used is the frog, and by "pithing" or 
decapitating it, it is made wholly insensible to pain. 

The idea that students privately "torture" animals, 
often, it is stated, out of mere curiosity, is absolutely 
false. I have been intimately associated with students 
ever since 1860, first as a student and since 1866 as a 
teacher. I state, therefore, what I am in a position to 
know. Moreover, private experimental research takes 
time which our overworked students do not have, and 
money which they cannot afford. It means the rent of 
a laboratory, the purchase of very expensive and delicate 
instruments, the rent of an animal room, the cost of the 
animals, and of their food and care, a man to look after 
them — for all modern surgical work on animals must 
be done with the same strict antiseptic care as on man 
or the experiment will surely fail and discredit the 
author — a total expense amounting to a very large sum. 

I quote in full the rules which, as I have said, are in 
force in practically all American laboratories of research: 


1. Vagrant dogs and cats brought to this laboratory and 
purchased here shall be held at least as long as at the city 
pound, and shall be returned to their owners if claimed and 

2. Animals in the laboratory shall receive every considera- 
tion for their bodily comfort ; they shall be kindly treated, 
properly fed, and their surroundings kept in the best possible 
sanitary condition. 


3. Xo operations on animals shall be made except with the 
sanction of the director of the laboratory, who -holds himself 
responsible for the importance of the problems studied and for 
the propriety of the procedures used in the solution of these 

4. In any operation likely to cause greater discomfort than 
that attending anesthetization, the animal shall first be ren- 
dered incapable of perceiving pain and shall be maintained in 
that condition until the operation is ended. 

Exceptions to this rule will be made by the director alone, 
and then only when anesthesia would defeat the object of the 
experiment. In such cases an anesthetic shall be used so far 
as possible and may be discontinued only so long as is abso- 
lutely essential for the necessary observations. 

5. At the conclusion of the experiment the animal shall be 
killed painlessly. Exceptions to this rule will be made only 
when continuance of the animal's life is necessary to deter- 
mine the result of the experiment. In that case, the same 
aseptic precautions shall be observed during the operation, and 
so far as possible the same care shall be taken to minimize 
discomforts during the convalescence as in a hospital for 
human beings. 


Director of the Laboratory. 

I may add that at the Rockefeller Institute regular 
trained nurses are employed and are on duty not only 
during the day, but at night when necessary. 

Self-confessed total ignorance of a subject on which 
one gives extensive evidence is not often known, but 
Dr. Herbert Snow of London, an authority among the 
antivivisectionists, is a case in point. Dr. Snow's evi- 
dence before the Royal Commission on Vivisection 
(1906) covers ten pages quarto and he answers 326 
questions. In 1911 Dr. Snow visited America. In a 
letter to the Philadelphia hedged he makes the almost 
incredible statement that he gave all this evidence "in 
utter ignorance of the vivisection question." 

Moreover, when asked by the Commission (Question 
2242), "Do you find any fault with the present gentle- 
men who are licensed under the act"? he replied, "I do 
not," and again (Questions 222? and 2228) he admits 
that both painful and painless experiments may some- 
times be necessary. 

In other eases ignorance of physiology and anatomy 
is shown which would only excite a smile did it not 

4. Philadelphia Ledger, March 6, 1911. 


gravely mislead the reader. I shall give only a single 
illustration here. Others will be found elsewhere in 
this paper. 

"The Nine Circles," with its sulphurous subtitle, 
"Hell of the Innocent," is an English book originally 
issued by the late Miss Frances Power Cobbe, in 1892. 
This edition had to be withdrawn on account of its 
false statements, especially as to the non-use of ether. 5 
A second and revised edition was issued in 1893. This 
was "carefully revised and enlarged by a subcommittee 
especially appointed for the purpose," as the preface 

On page 15 of the revised edition, it is correctly 
stated that Prof. Henry P. Bowditch of the Harvard 
Medical School, in some experiments on the circulation, 
etherized a cat and that "then its sciatic nerve was 
divided, etc." The sciatic nerve is the largest nerve in 
the body of man and animals and passes down the back 
of the leg. After division of the nerve the portion going 
down the leg below the place where the nerve was 
divided was stimulated by an electrical current. As this 
part of the nerve was wholly cut off from the spinal 
cord and brain, by no possibility could any pain be felt. 
Yet a Boston lawyer, in a leaflet published by the New 
England Antivivisection Society, comments on a similar 
experiment as follows : "It will be readily seen even 
by the casual reader that it involves an amount of agony 
beyond which science is unable to go." Just how the 
"casual reader" would be so well informed as to physi- 
ology when a lawyer and two doctors — not casual but 
intelligent and careful readers — got things totally 
wrong, is not stated. Dr. Bowditch published a correc- 
tion of this misstatement in 1896. In spite of this, the 
New England Antivivisection Society in 1909, thirteen 
years after this public correction, was still distributing 
this lawyer's statement. 

But in "The Nine Circles" (second edition, carefully 
revised by Dr. Berdoe and the committee) these experi- 
ments are referred to as "experiments on the spinal 
cord"! (Italics mine.) Yet Bowditch did no operation 
on the spinal cord. Miss Cobbe, not being an anatomist, 
might be pardoned for confusing the thigh and the spine 
of the cat, but surely Dr. Berdoe ought to have seen to 

5. See pp. 26, 27 and 28 of this reprint. 

6. Bowditch, Henry P. : Advancement of Medicine by Research, 
p. 43. 


it that "sciatic nerve" and "spinal cord" were not used 
as interchangeable terms. 

Many years ago, after amputating a leg near the hip, 
I tried to see how long electric stimulation of the sciatic 
nerve would cause the muscles of the amputated leg to 
contract. After four hours, during all of which time 
the muscles continued to react, I had to stop as I could 
give no more time to the experiment. According to the 
canons of antivivisection as voiced above, I should have 
continued to etherize the patient whose leg had been 
amputated, for he, just as much as Bowclitch's cat, could 
feel "agony beyond which science is unable to go." 

Let me give only two other surprising statements. 
Dr. Hadwen 7 criticizes my reference in Harper's Maga- 
zine 8 to "an astringent named 'adrenalin.' ' ; I had 
shown how valuable adrenalin had been in saving human 
life in certain surgical conditions, and also described the 
resuscitation, . by means of adrenalin and salt solution, 
of a dog which had been "dead" for fifteen minutes. Dr. 
Hadwen concludes his paragraph thus : "But it does 
seem a pity that these New World vivisectors will not be 
able to perform the resurrection miracle without first 
killing somebody to get at his kidneys." The presum- 
able object of "getting at his kidneys" would be in order 
to make adrenalin from them. Now adrenalin is not 
made from the kidneys at all, least of all from human 
kidneys, but from the adrenal glands of animals. 

In the same article he vaunts the use of salt solution 
instead of the direct transfusion of blood, and rightk" 
says that he has "seen the most marvelous effects folio > 
the injection of an ordinary saline solution into the 
venous system in cases of loss of blood." But he seems 
to be ignorant of the fact that this very saline transfusion 
was begun and perfected by experiments on animals. I 
commend to him Schwarz's essay (Halle, 1881) with its- 
twenty-four experiments on rabbits and dogs, and 
Eberius' essay (Halle, 1883) with its ten experiments 
on rabbits and the record of eleven cases in which 
Schwarz's method had already been used in man. These 
essays were practically the beginning of our knowledge 
of the advantages of the use of salt solution over the 
old dangerous methods of transfusion of blood. 

The antivivisectionists deny the truths of bacteriology. 
Yet we practical physicians, surgeons and obstetricians 

7. Hadwen : Jour. Zoophily, January, 1910. 

8. Keen, W. W. : Harper's Magazine, April, 1909. 


Icnow by daily experience that Pasteur's and Lister's 
researches are the basis of most of our modern progress. 
Are Hadwen, Harrigan, Snow and their colleagues right 
and have all medical colleges all over the world in estab- 
lishing chairs of bacteriology and all medical men in 
believing bacteriologic diagnosis of such importance and 
in basing on the germ theory their antiseptic treatment 
which has so revolutionized modern surgery been wholly 
wrong? The germ theory is as well established as the 
doctrine of the circulation of the blood. 9 


My second reason for believing that antivivisection 
injures character is that, by putting a greater value on 
the well-being and the lives of monkeys, guinea-pigs, 
rabbits, dogs, cats, mice and frogs than on the lives 
of human beings, it fosters a spirit of cruelty to human 

Is it not a cruel passion which will lead men and 
women to write such letters and to print such epithets 
as I have quoted? Is it a right thing to misstate the 
facts of operations, and after the falsity of the charge 
has been proved, still continue for years to hold up men 
with human feelings and sensitive to abuse before the 
community as vile monsters of cruelty? Nay, more 
than this, is it not an extraordinary thing that those 
who so vehemently denounce human vivisection are even 
"mong its advocates? 

9. In Mrs. White's answer to this address (Boston Med. and Surg. 
Jour., July 25, 1912, p. 143), as the editor on page 131 points out, 
her reference to the "fever inseparable from the healing of abdominal 
wounds" shows ignorance of the results of modern progress in sur- 
gery. Thanks to bacteriology and the antiseptic method of Lister 
and his followers, thousands of surgeons and patients the world 
over can confirm my own experience, both as a surgeon and as a 
patient, that no fever usually follows a clean abdominal operation. 
Before Lister's day, not only was there the terrible fever and suf- 
fering of peritonitis, but the mortality was so great that we never 
dared to do many operations which are now commonplace and 
rarely fatal. Another illustration of ignorance of surgery is found 
in Mrs. White's reference (p. 143; in the same paragraph to the 
"pain caused by the presence of gall-stones in the gall-bladder," a 
pain which she says "is generally considered the most violent pain 
known." Now. it is true that sometimes "gall-stones in the gall- 
bladder" do cause some or even considerable pain ; but many post- 
mortem examinations reveal "gall-stones in the gall-bladder" which 
have never given the patient the slightest pain, and the patient, 
therefore, was totally ignorant of their presence. The "violent 
pain" to which she refers is due not to their presence in the gall- 
bladder, but to the terrible "gall-stone colic" caused by the passage 
of the gall-stones out of the gall-bladder into its duct, or tube, 
opening into the bowel. Modern antiseptic surgery prevents these 
constantly recurring attacks by safely removing the gall-stones from 
the gall-bladder or from the gall-duct. 


When I was professor of surgery in the Woman's 
Medical College of Pennsylvania I took as the topic of 
'my address at one of the commencements, "Our Eecent 
Debts to Vivisection." Mrs. Caroline Earle White pub- 
lished "An Answer to Dr. Keen's Address Entitled, 
"Our Eecent Debts to Vivisection/' At the bottom of 
page 4 I find the following: "I take issue with Dr. 
Keen in the second place where he says, 'These experi- 
ments cannot, nay, must not, be tested first upon man.' 
I assert, on the contrary, that in the majority of cases 
they must be tested first upon man [italics my own] or 
not tested at all, because no important deductions can 
ever be drawn with any degree of certainty from experi- 
ments upon animals, since in some, inexplicable way their 
construction is so different from that of man." 

The statements in the latter portion of the concluding 
sentence will much amuse anatomists, physiologists and 
biologists, or, in fact, any one who reallv knows anything 
about science. With minor modifications, man and the 
lower animals are alike in almost all particulars, both 
in structure and function, in health and disease. 

The extraordinary fact is that Mrs. White asserts 
that experiments must be tested first on men or not 
tested at all. That is to say, we must either experiment 
on human beings or else continue in exactly the same 
old rut as before and never make any progress, for every 
departure from prior practice, however slight, is an 

If this basic doctrine of antivivisection had held good 
for the last fifty years "Lister would not have been able, 
after carefully testing his antiseptic method on animals 
and having found it successful, then, and not before 
then, to try it on man. 10 By this means he became, as 
the British Medical Journal has just called him, "the 
maker of modern surgery." 

On page 10 of Mrs. White's "Answer" is found the 
following flat-footed advocacy of human vivisection: 
"Dr. Keen mentions that in India alone 20,000 human 
beings die annually from snake-bites and as yet no 
antidote has been discovered. How can we search 
intelligently for an antidote, he says, until we know 
accurately the effects of the poison? I should reply 
that in order to find out the effects of the poison and to 

10. Keen, W. W. : Modern Antiseptic Surgery and the Role of 
Experiment in Its Discovery and Development, Jour. Am. Med. 
Assn., April 2. lSlO, p. 1104. Reprinted in this series of pamphlets 
on Defense of Research. See Xo. XII, page 2 of the cover. 


search also for an antidote, the best plan would be for 
the experimenters to go to India where they could find 
as large a field for investigation as they require in the 
poor victims themselves. Here is an opportunity such 
as is not often offered for experimenting upon human 
beings, 11 since as they would invariably die from the 
snake-bites, there can be no objection to trying upon them 
every variety of antidote that can be discovered. Nothing 
seems to me less defensible than these experiments on 
the poison of snake bites upon animals since it is the one 
case in which they could be observed with so much 
satisfaction and certainty upon man!" (Italics my own.) 

Such a proposal is as absurd as it is cruel. Even if 
the experimenter could afford sufficient time and money 
to go to India for months or rather for years, how 
could he arrange to be present when such unexpected 
accidents occurred? How could he have at hand in the 
jungle the ether, chemicals, assistants, tables, tents, 
food and drink, and the necessary yet intricate and 
delicate instruments? And even if he had all of these, 
how could he work with the calmness and the orderly 
deliberation of the laboratory when a fellow human 
being's life was ebbing away and every minute counted 
in such a swift poison? The proposal is cruel and 
revolting and would never be accepted by any 

But Mrs. White is not the only one who is guilty of 
making such a proposal. Many antivivisection leaflets 
and pamphlets express the wish that the vivisectors 
should be vivisected. In a pamphlet 12 freely distributed 
in the United States I find the following in a letter 
from a man at that time a Senator of the United States : 
"It would be much better to dissect men alive occasion- 
ally for the general welfare because the attendant 
phenomena and demonstration of the victims being of 
our own particular form of animal would be far more 

11. In her answer to this address (Boston Med. and Surg - . Jour., 
July 25, 1912, p. 143), Mrs. White, after ample time for reflection, 
defends her proposal for "experimenting- on human beings," saying 
that "it does not seem to me that this is a cruel suggestion, as my 
only object in it was to benefit the poor natives who die by the 
thousand every year." Such a defense places her clearly and defi- 
niteJy among the advocates of vivisection, whose "only object" is 
to prevent death "by thousands every year." This object, more- 
over, has already been obtained in a score of diseases and will be 
obtained hereafter in many others, not, however, by "experimenting 
on human beings," as she advocates, but on dogs, cats, rabbits, 
guinea-pigs, mice, frogs, etc. 

12. Cobbe, Frances Power, and Bryan, Benjamin : Vivisection in 
America, p. 15. 


valuable than the result of our observation upon the 
physical structure illustrated in the agonies unto death 
of the helpless creatures around us." The English is as 
distressing as the proposal is astounding. 

Let me give one more illustration of the effect of anti- 
vivisection in encouraging cruelty. 

To-day the plague, cholera and yellow fever no longer 
terrify Europe or America. What is the reason for this ? 
Primarily and chiefly the discovery of the germs of 
cholera and of the plague by bacteriologic methods, 
which in turn are very largely the result of experiment 
on animals, and of the means of the transmission of 
yellow fever, though as yet not of its cause. In the 
latter case experiments on animals were out of the 
question because it is impossible to transmit yellow fever 
to animals. They are not susceptible to the poison. So 
a number of noble medical men and others volunteered 
to have experiments tried on them. The very first 
experiments were tried on medical men. These men 
slept in a stifling atmosphere for twenty nights in the 
beds in which yellow fever patients had died, and in 
their very clothes, clothes soiled with their black vomit, 
urine and feces ; tried to inoculate themselves by putting 
some of the black vomit into their eyes, or by hypodermic 
injections, etc., but all in vain. By none of these 
methods were they able to inoculate themselves with the 
fever. One step more was requisite — to learn whether 
a well man bitten by an infected niosquito, but having 
been exposed to no other possible source of infection, 
would contract the disease. Dr. Carroll of the Army 
was the first to offer himself, and nearly lost his life. 
Others followed. Several lost their lives, among them 
Dr. Lazear, at the beginning of a most promising career. 
His tablet in the Johns Hopkins Hospital, in the fine 
words written by President Eliot records that "with 
more than the courage and the devotion of the soldier, 
he risked and lost his life to show how a fearful pesti- 
lence is communicated and how its ravages may be 

Contrast with this a cruel letter 13 written by a woman : 
"Science is based on such firm foundation, indeed, that 
it can at a moment's notice be tumbled down and 
become a wrecked mass by a mosquito ! Xot only this, 
but these life-long vivisectors could not even prolong 

13. New York Herald, Aug. 2, 1909. 


their own lives. Undone by a mosquito ! I shall always 
have unbounded admiration- for that clever insect." 
(Italics mine.) 

This self-sacrifice for humanity has made us masters 
the world over of yellow fever, has made possible the 
Panama Canal, has saved many thousands of human 
lives and millions of dollars in our own Southern states 
alone, and yet a woman can feel "unbounded admiration 
for the clever insect" which slew these heroes and had 
devastated cities and countries for centuries ! Does not 
such antivivisection zeal "hurt character"? 

Two men are especially obnoxious to the antivivisec- 
tionist : Pasteur, whose demonstration of the cause of 
that form of infection known as puerperal or childbed 
fever alone would have made his name immortal; and 
Lister, whose application and extension of the principles 
laid down by Pasteur have revolutionized all modern 

I need not argue the case for Pasteur, Lister and 
modern antiseptic surgery. Excepting the antivivisec- 
tionists, every intelligent man and woman the world over 
knoivs that modern surgery has been made safe by their 
researches. Let me give a single instance. 

In the charming "Life of Pasteur" by Rene Vallery- 
Radot, it is stated 14 that, hoping to overcome the almost 
invariably fatal results of ovariotomy in the hospitals, 
the authorities of Paris "hired an isolated house in the 
Avenue de Meudon, a salubrious spot near Paris. In 
1863 ten women in succession were sent to that house. 
The neighbors watched those ten patients entering the 
house, and a short time afterward their ten coffins being 
taken away !" When I was the assistant to the late 
Dr. Washington L. Atlee in the late 60's, two patients 
out of three on whom he, the foremost ovariotomist in 
America, operated died. 

To-da3 r , thanks to Pasteur and Lister and modern 
surgery, based on experiment on animals more than on 
any other foundation, not more than two or three in a 
hundred die after ovariotomy. Yet, if the antivivisec- 
tionists had prevailed, tbe horrible mortality of the 
earlier days and even the tragedy of the ten women and 
the ten coffins would still exist. Is not this cruelty? 

Let me take another illustration of a similar cruelty, 
a form especially interesting to women. Prof. J. 

14. Vallery-Radot : Life of Pasteur, ii, 16. 


Whitridge Williams, 15 professor of obstetrics in the 
Johns Hopkins University, states the following facts: 
In 1866 Lefort showed" that in 888,312 obstetric cases 
in the hospitals of France up to 1864, 30,394 women 
had died of puerperal fever; that is to say, 3.5 per cent., 
or about every twenty-seventh mother. From 1860 to 
1864 the mortality in the Maternite of Paris had risen 
nearly fourfold, to 12.4 per cent. In December, 1864, 
it rose to 57 per cent. ; that is to say, more than, one-half 
of the women who bore children in that hospital in that 
month died of childbed fever ! In Prussia alone, in the 
sixty years from 1815 to 1875, Boehr showed that 
363,624 women had died of the same fever and estimated 
that every thirtieth prospective mother was doomed to 
death from that cause. In the United States, Hodge, 
of Philadelphia, showed that in the Pennsylvania Hos- 
pital from 1803 to 1833 there had been a mortality of 
5.6 per cent. ; i. e., every eighteenth mother was doomed. 
Lusk reported an epidemic in 1872 with 18 per cent.; 
that is, almost every fifth mother perished from the 
same fever ! 

As late as March, 1879, only thirty-three years ago, 
at the Paris Academy of Medicine, when the leading 
men in a debate on childbed fever were at a loss to 
account for it, Pasteur drew on the blackboard what 
we now know as the streptococcus and declared this little 
vegetable organism to be its cause. Our own Oliver 
Wendell Holmes in 1843 was the first who declared on 
clinical grounds that the doctors and the nurses carried 
.the contamination, but how and why he could not know, 
for bacteriology did not then exist. • He was followed 
by Semmelweis, of Vienna, who in 1861 still further 
reinforced the reasoning of Holmes, and for his pains 
was tabooed by his professional colleagues and ended his 
life in a madhouse. 

The result of Pasteur's researches and the practical 
application of Lister's antiseptic method to obstetrics as 
well as to surgery have borne the most astounding and 
gratifying fruit. For instance, in 1909 Markoe reported 
in the New York Lying-in Hospital in 60,000 births a 
maternal mortality of only 0.34 per cent., and Pinard 
in 1909 in 45,633 births recorded a mortality of only 
0.15 per cent., while in 1907 Mermann had been able 

15. Williams, J. Whitridge : Obstetrics and Animal Experimenta- 
tion, Jour. Am. Med. Assn., April 22, 1911, p. 1159, and this series 
of pamphlets No. XVIII. 


to report a mortality of only 0.08 per cent, in 8,700 
patients ! In other words, these reports show in round 
numbers that, taking in the two extremes, the deaths 
from childbed fever fell from the extraordinary rate 
of fifty-seven in a hundred mothers, or the former usual 
rate of five or six in every hundred mothers, to one 
mother in 1,250. 

If for fifty years past the antivivisectionists had had 
their way, all these marvelous results in obstetrics would 
have been prevented and women would still be dying 
by the hundred and the thousand from puerperal fever 

— an entirely preventable disease. Would it not have 
been the height of cruelty to stop these experiments? 
But according to the Journal of Zodphity such wonder- 
ful life-saving exjDeriments should be prohibited, "no 
matter how great the anticipates benefit." 

In surgery, erysipelas, blood-poisoning, lockjaw, hos- 
pital gangrene, etc., would still be killing our patients 
right and left; weeks of suffering, to say nothing of 
danger, would confront every patient operated on; the 
modern surgery of the ' head, of every organ in the 
abdomen and pelvis, of tumors and of cancer, amputa- 
tions and many other operations, instead of being almost 
painless and so safe as they are to-day, would be the 
cause of prolonged illness, pain and death ; in fact, most 
of them would be deemed entirely impossible of perform- 
ance — they were impossible before Pasteur and Lister 

— and animals themselves would still be suffering as 
of old from animal maladies whose causes are now 
known and whose ravages have been enormously, 

Call you not the desire to arrest such experiments 
cruelty to man and animals alike? 

In a speech in the House of Commons, April i, 1883, 
Sir Lyon Play fair, the Deputy Speaker, said : 

For myself, though formerly a professor of chemistry in the 
greatest medical school of this country [Edinburgh], I am 
responsible only for the death of two rabbits by poison, and I 
ask the attention of the House to the case as a strong justifi- 
cation for experiments on animals; and yet I should have been 
treated as a criminal under the present act [the British vivi- 
section law] had it then existed. 

Sir James Simpson, who introduced chloroform, . . . 
was then alive and in constant quest of new anesthetics. He 
came to my laboratory one day to see if I had any new sub- 
stances likely to suit his purpose. I showed him a liquid 


which had just been discovered by one of ray assistants, and 
Sir James, who was bold to rashness in experimenting on him- 
self, desired immediately to inhale it in my private room. I 
refused to give him any of the liquid unless it was first tried 
on rabbits. Two rabbits were accordingly made to inhale it; 
they quickly passed into anesthesia and apparently as quickly 
recovered, but from an after-action of the jioison they both died 
a few hours afterward. Now was this not a justifiable experi- 
ment on animals? Was not the sacrifice of two rabbits worth 
saving the life of the most distinguished physician of his 
time ? 

As this experiment was not for the good of the two 
rabbits, but in fact, killed them, in the eye of present- 
day antivivisectionists it would be wrong, and, if they 
had their way, illegal and punishable, and Simpson 
would have lost his life. Would not this be cruelty? 

Let me state briefly two of the most recent discoveries 
in medicine and surgery : 

1. Vaccination against typhoid fever. Starting from 
Pasteur's researches on animal diseases and continued 
by various observers and especially in the last few years 
by Sir Almroth Wright, of London, there has been 
developed chiefly by experiments on animals a "vaccine" 
to prevent typhoid fever. When by such experiments 
the method was found to be sufficiently safe, it was 
tried on man.' 

In the Boer War, and among the German troops in 
their African colonies, tentative trials of its value were 
made. Now it has been tried in the United States 
Army on a larger scale and with more astonishingly 
good results than in any previous trials. 

During the Spanish War there were 20,738 cases of 
typhoid and 1,580 deaths; nearly one-fifth of the entire 
army had the disease. It caused over 86 per cent, of the 
entire mortality of that war ! In some regiments as 
many as 400 men out of 1,300 fell ill with it. How this 
would handicap an army in the field — to say nothing 
of deaths — is evident. 

Lately in our army on the Mexican border, for months 
under war conditions, except as to actual hostilities, 
there has not oeen a single soldier ill with typhoid: 
This is due partly to better sanitation (which in turn is 
due largely to bacteriology) but chiefly by reason of 
wholesale antityphoid vaccination. This is evident from 
the fact that during the year June 30, 1908, to 1909, 
when this vaccination was purely voluntary and the 

army was not in the field, proportionately sixteen times 
as many unvaccinated soldiers fell ill with the disease 
as compared with the vaccinated. On the Mexican border 
there has been only one single case of typhoid, not in a 
soldier, but a teamster who had not been vaccinated. So 
evident are the benefits of this preventive inoculation 
that Dr. Neff, the director of health of Philadelphia, has 
issued a circular proposing its municipal use, and also 
to prevent typhoid in our summer resorts. In many 
large hospitals it is extensively used to protect the 
physicians and nurses from catching the fever. 

Would it not have been cruel to prevent such life- 
saving experiments? 

2. In surgery let me instance the surgery of the chest. 
This has been the region in which progress has lagged 
far behind that of all the other parts of the body till 
within the last five or six years. The reason was that 
the moment you opened the chest cavity to get at the 
heart, the lungs, the esophagus, the aorta or the pleura, 
it was like making an opening in the side of a bellows. 
The air, instead of being drawn in and forced out 
through the nozzle (corresponding to the mouth in the 
case of a patient), passed in and out through the opening 
in the side of the bellows or the chest. If only one side 
was opened, breathing was embarrassed, if both sides 
were opened the patient's lungs collapsed, breathing was 
impossible and death ensued. 

Sauerbruch, then of Breslau, first devised a large air- 
tight box or chamber in which the pressure of the air 
could be increased or diminished at will. The body of 
the patient, the surgeons, nurses and instruments were 
all inside the box, and a telephone enabled them to give 
directions to those outside, especially to the etherizer. 
The head of the patient with an air-tight collar around 
his neck protruded outside of the chamber where the 
etherizer also was placed. In such a chamber the chest 
could be safely opened. But while this was an immense 
improvement, such a chamber is clumsy, not easily 
transportable, and is very expensive. The method has 
done good service, however. It has been improved by 
others and is in use to-day by many surgeons. 

At the Bockefeller Institute, Meltzer and Auer, by a 
number of experiments on animals, have lately developed 
a new, simple and safe method of anesthesia with ether 
which is revolutionizing the surgery of the chest and to 
a considerable extent may even displace the ordinary 


inhalation method of anesthesia. As soon as the patient 
has been etherized in the ordinary way, a rubber tube is 
inserted into the windpipe through the mouth. By a 
foot bellows ether-laden air is pumped into the lungs 
through this tube, the foul breath escaping between the 
tube and the windpipe and out through the mouth. 
Experiments on animals showed that the rubber tube 
used for so long a time would not injure the vocal chords 
and so alter or destroy the voice of a patient, or cause 
injury to the lungs, and that the method was most 
efficacious in the surgery of the chest. 

I saw Carrel thus keep a dog under ether for about an 
hour and a half; open both sides of the chest by one 
wide sweep of the knife, displace the heart and lungs 
this way or that; expose and divide the aorta between 
two clamps (to prevent immediate fatal hemorrhage) ; 
do a tedious and difficult operation on the aorta; unite 
its two cut ends; replace the heart and lungs, and close 
the wound. An hour later the dog, which showed no 
evidences of suffering, was breathing naturally, and in 
time recovered entirely.* What this method means in 
injuries and diseases of the heart, in gangrene, abscess 
and tumors of the lungs, in cancer of the esophagus, and 
foreign bodies lodged in the esophagus or in the bronchial 
tubes, and in diseases of the aorta, one can hardly yet 
even imagine. 

These experiments have done more for the surgery of 
the chest in three or four years than all the "clinical 
observation" of cases in a thousand years. The method 
has already been tried successfully in several hundreds 
of cases in man, and the future has in store for us a 
new and most beneficent chapter in the surgery of the 

Yet if the antivivisectionists had prevailed all these 
experiments would have been prevented, the doors of 
the Eockefeller Institute nailed up, and men, women 
and children have been deprived of the benefits of these 
splendid discoveries. Call you not that intensely cruel ? 

Moreover, these very same people in their own house- 
holds and without the slightest pity will kill rats and 
mice by turning them over to the tender mercies of cats, 
by drowning them, by strangling them in traps, by 
poisoning them with strychnin or phosphorus, or by 

* For these and other experimental researches Carrel has just 
been awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine — a splendid testimony to 
his genius — from the first scientists of the world. 


any other means of "torture"; but they hold up their 
hands in holy horror when any proposal is made to 
terminate the lives of other rats and mice almost always 
without pain and with immense benefit to humanity. 
They are cruel and callous to human suffering so long 
as dogs and cats, mice and guinea-pigs escape ! And yet, 
as I have shown, only twenty-six animals in a thousand 
can possibly ever suffer at all ! 

That sentiment rather than principle is at the bottom 
of the antivivisection crusade is shown by what I in 
common with many others believe to be true, that if 
experimental research could be carried on in other 
animals without using clogs and cats there would scarcely 
have been any antivivisection movement. 


The third way in which the influence of antivivisection 
injures character is by diminishing the reverence for 
accuracy. In 1901 1 gave many instances 16 of the misstate- 
ments of the antivivisectionists. These misstatements 
were contained in two anonymous pamphlets, and I have 
two more similar publications which are also anonymous. 
1 have before me also three publications purporting to be 
replies to that publication of mine, all again anonymous. 
Is a foe who attacks from ambush worthy of the respect 
and confidence of the public ? 

These misstatements, so far as I know, are still dis- 
tributed in leaflets and pamphlets without correction 
nearly eleven years after their incorrectness was shown. 
In fact, several of them reappear uncorrected in the 
Journal of Zoophily for Julv, 1911. 

Let me give a few new instances. 

The most prominent antivivisectiOnist in England is 
Mr. Stephen Coleridge. On page 183 (April to July, 
190?) in the minutes of his evidence before the Eoyal 
Commission on Vivisection, I find the following: 

Question 10952: We may have inspection, but still we may 
ask a person of character when he saw the experiment what, 
his opinion of it was. Will you not accept that ? 

Answer: Certainly not, because I think that all these experi- 
menters have the greatest contempt for the act of Parliament. 
They would deny a breach of this act just as I should deny 
a breach of the motor car act. I drive a motor car and 

16. Keen, W. W. : Misstatements on Antivivisection, Jour. Am. 
Med. Assn., Feb. 23, 1901, p. 500. 

when I go beyond the speed limit and the policeman asks me 
I say, % Xo, I am not going beyond the speed limit, 11 [italics mine]. 
Nothing would keep me from going beyond the speed limit 
except the presence of a policeman in the car; and nothing 
will keep the experimenter within the four corners of the act 
except an inspector in the laboratory. 

Question 10953: Surely, if you were asked about the speed 
limit and gave your word that you had not exceeded it, you 
would not expect to be disbelieved ? 

Answer : No, I did not say so. I said last year that of 
course I did, and I exceed it every time. 

Question 10954: You (ire apparently not very ethical about 
motor cars [italics mine]. If you apply your principles as 
regards motoring to the physiologists, you have very little 
to say against them ? 

Answer : What I have to say is that they regard the vivisec- 
tion act of 1876 with the same contempt that I regard the 
motor car act as regards the speed limit. 

In quoting also a letter from the Home Office Mr. 
Coleridge admits mutilating it, for in reply to Question 
11015, he says, "I seem to have left out the important 
item of it."' See also Questions 10301, 11011, 11021 
and 19967 to 19973. 

Comment on Mr. Coleridge's testimony is superfluous. 

Again in the "Black Art of Vivisection," Mr. Cole- 
ridge states, "The Pasteur institutes in Paris and else- 
where have entirely failed to prevent people dying of 
hydrophobia." Yet the fact is that formerly from 12 
to 14 per cent, of persons bitten developed the disease 
and every one of them died, whereas the result of the 
Pasteur treatment in 55,000. cases has diminished the 
mortality to 0.77 per cent, of those bitten. 

I cite another English instance. In "The Xine Cir- 
cles," 18 is published a reply to a letter by Sir Victor 
(then Mr.) Horsley, published in the London Times, 
Oct. 25, 1892, a copy of which T have before me. The 
book, as the London Times points out in an editorial, 

17. In a letter referring to this address (Boston Med. and Surg. 
Jour., July 11, 1912. p. 71), Mr. Coleridge says that I seem "quite 
shocked that he should admit that he constantly breaks the law 
and exceeds the speed limit of 20 miles an hour in his motor car." 
and that "a quarter of a million motorists" do the same. If the 
reader will again peruse Mr. Coleridge*s testimony, as quoted in the 
text, he will find that there are two admissions: (1) that he con- 
stantly breaks the law. i. e.. the "statute law" of England as to 
the speed limit; and (2) that when he goes beyond the speed limit, 
and the policeman asks him he says, "No, I am not going beyond the 
speed limit." The last statement is what gives special point to the 
quotation from his evidence, but in his letter he omits any reference 
to this more important admission. 

18. Second Edition, pp. 23-28. 


Compiled under his [Dr. Berdoe's] direction. He was 
entrusted with the task of reading the proofs and was sup- 
posed to safeguard the accuracy of "the compiler." He now 
admits that he overlooked in Miss Cobbe's preface a passage 
in which she "was careful to say, ... so far as it has 
been possible, the use or absence of anesthetics has been noticed 
in regard to all the experiments cited in this book." Mr. Horsley 
in the appendix to his letter, which we publish this morning, 
shows by reference to some twenty cases cited in "The Nine 
Circles" how entirely inconsistent with the truth this guaran- 
tee is, and Dr. Berdoe's reluctant acknowledgment completes 
the proof. 

A still more remarkable letter appears in the same 
number of the Times from Prof. C. S. Sherrington of 
Liverpool. He sa}"s : 

I find in the book, "The Nine Circles," three instances in 
which I am by name and deed held up to public abhorrence. 
From each of the three statements made about me the employ- 
ment of anesthesia in my experiments is studiously omitted, 
although expressly mentioned in each of the published papers 
on which these statements are professed to rest. In two out 
of three statements I am accredited with inflicting on living 
animals, and without the employment of anesthetics, a dissec- 
tion and procedure that I pursued only on animals which icere 

Accordingly the society withdrew the book from the 
market, but later published a revised second edition. 

In his reply to Professor Horsley's letter calling atten- 
tion to the misstatements in the first edition, the excuses 
that Dr. Berdoe gives in this second edition are very 
extraordinary. Among them, for example, one is "the 
sentence about testing the sight after recovery from the 
anesthetic was overlooked. 

Another excuse is "this was taken at second hand 
from another report where the ' question of pain was 
not under discussion." In a third he says, "We have 
not always access to 'original papers' and can only rely 
on such reports and extracts as are given in the medical 
and other journals." 

I ask whether it is fair, square dealing to base grave 
charges of cruelty on sentences "overlooked" and on 
"second-hand" misinformation ? 

But Miss Cobbe was by no means satisfied with mis- 
representing English medical men. In the pamphlet 
"Vivisection in America," I find on page 9 a letter by a 


Boston lawyer in which he says of American experiments, 
"In other words, animals are dissected alive usually 
without the use of anesthetics, for the supposed (but 
illusory) gain to science." (Italics mine.) I have 
already given a table showing that only twenty-six ani- 
mals out of a thousand could by any possibility have 
suffered any pain, and that even these were anesthetized. 
Is it correct, then, to say that animals are "dissected 
alive usually without anesthetics"? 

Near the top of page 45 Miss Cobbe's pamphlet reads 
as follows : 

Dr. Ott, in the Journal of Physiology, Vol. II, p. 42, describes 
a number of experiments on a number of cats not etherized 
[italics my own], for the purpose of making observations on 
the physiology of the spinal cord. 

I find that on reading the original paper there were 
four series of experiments: 

In the first series, there were twenty experiments. In 
the first experiment the animal was killed before the 
experiment began. In. eleven other instances it is 
expressly stated in each experiment that the animals 
were etherized. Dr. Ott informs me that the other 
eight were so etherized and that he invariably etherizes 
the animals. 

In the second series there were eight experiments. 
On page 52 of the Journal of Physiology it is stated 
that the animals were etherized. 

The third series consisted of ten experiments, and on 
page 54 it is expressly stated that the animals were 

The fourth series consisted of ten experiments and 
again on page 60 it is stated that the animals were 
etherized. We see, therefore, that Miss Cobbe's state- 
ment "not etherized'- is untrue, for of forty-eight ani- 
mals, one was killed ; in thirty-nine it is expressly stated 
that they were etherized ; leaving only eight out of forty 
as to the etherization of which nothing is said, though it 
was done. 

On pages 45 to 48 I find a series of experiments on 
the surgery of the pancreas by the late Dr. Senn of 
Chicago. This was in July, 1886, at a time when the 
surgery of the pancreas was just beginning. Two pages 
and a half of Miss Cobbe's pamphlet are devoted to 
describing in detail experiments which, as no mention is 


made in her pamphlet of ether, one would certainly 
suppose were done without ether and would certainly be 
very painful. On looking at page 142 of the original 
paper I find that it is expressly stated that the animals 
were etherized. 

In a series of experiments by Halsted, under experi- 
ment jSTo. 6, p. 51, Miss Cobbe's pamphlet says, "Died 
under the operation, which was carried on for two hours 
on a young, small brindle dog," which would imply two 
hours of "agony." The original expressly states the 
fact that this dog died from the effects of the ether. 

So much for Miss Cobbe's idea of reproducing accu- 
rate accounts of the experiments to which she refers. 

An amusing instance of misrepresentation is seen in 
an antivivisection comment made on one of Carrel's 
experiments on a cat. "How intense the suffering must 
have been to cause a cat (an animal usually so quiet 
and reposeful) to spend the day jumping on and off the 
furniture !" As a matter of fact, the kitten was only 
"playing with a ball of paper." 

Another illustration of the way in which sentences are 
detached from their context and made to mean quite 
different things and repeatedly published years after 
the falsity of the statement has been demonstrated is 
shown by the constant inclusion of Sir Frederick Treves 
among the opponents of vivisection. He stated of one 
single investigation that operations on the intestines 
of dogs in his opinion — other surgeons do not hold 
the same opinion — were useless as a means of fitting 
the surgeon for operations on the human bowel. Ever 
since this utterance 19 Sir Frederick Treves has been con- 
stantly quoted in the manner mentioned, yet in a letter 
to the London Times of April 18, 1902, he says: 

The fallacy of vivisection can hardly be said to be estab- 
lished by the failure of a series of operations dealing with one 
small branch of practical surgery. Xo one is more keenly aware 
than I am of the great benefits conferred on suffering humanity 
by certain researches carried out by means of vivisection. 

This was noticed editorially in the British Medical 
Journal of April 26, 1902. So late as 1909. in the May 
number of the Journal of Zobphily, the editor-in-chief, 
Mrs. Caroline Earle White, reprints from the North 
American of April 12, 1909, her signed letter, and 
implies that Sir Frederick Treves is an opponent of 

19. Treves, Sir Frederick : Lancet, London, Nov. 5, 1908. 


vivisection, seven years after this correction had 
appeared. In the number of the same journal for July, 
1909, the associate editor of the journal prints a letter 
of denial from Sir Frederick Treves, and yet so late as 
the number for March, 1911, p. 177, the same old quota- 
tion from Sir Frederick Treves is published in the same 
journal which twenty-two months before had printed his 
own letter of denial. 20 ' 21 

At the annual meeting of the Eesearch Defense Society 
Sir Frederick Treves, in referring to the great progress 
made in the science of medicine, said : "This progress 
has in the main been accomplished by experiments on 
animals." Ought not his name hereafter to be omitted 
from the list of the opponents of vivisection ? 

A postal card issued by the American Antivivisection 
Society in Philadelphia (there are several others of the 
same sort) presents a picture of a large dog with his 
mouth gagged wide open and his paws tied "without 
anesthetic." The object of the gag, of course, is to pre- 
vent the animal from biting before and while it is being 
etherized. It is absurd to state that this produces any 
pain, but a guide at the traveling antivivisection exhi- 
bition explained to two of my friends that it was used to 
break the jaivs of the dogs! and that this was done 
"without ariesthetics." But in nearly all our surgical 
operations within the mouth, on the tonsils, cleft palate, 
the tongue, etc., we employ gags of various kinds to 
keep the mouth wide open. To show how little annoy- 
ance this causes, here is a picture (Fig. 2) of a little 
girl, 4 years old, my own granddaughter, with a mouth- 
gag which I have used many times over with children 
and adults in operations about the mouth. This' particu- 
lar photograph, it will be observed, was taken also "with- 
out an anesthetic." It was not necessary to tie her 
hands and feet as is done with dogs, for the child 
regarded the whole proceeding of photographing her with 
her mouth wide open as a "lark," and sat as still as a 
mouse. Is it necessary to add that her jaw was not 
broken ? 

Miss Britton, in her $300 antivivisection prize essay 22 
vividly describes an operation (removal of the breasts 

20. Just as I had corrected the proof of this paper, April 29, 1912. 
I received throug'h the mail from Mrs. Caroline Earle White a reprint 
of her letter of April 12, 1909, with the same misleading quota- 
tion, thirty-three months after Sir Frederick Treves' letter of denial 
had been printed in her own journal. 

21. Treves. Sir Frederick : Brit. Med. Jour.. July 8, 1911, p. 82. 

22. Our Dumb Animals, January, 1910. 


of a nursing mother dog) which was never done at all. 
This fictitious operation is described in "The Nine 
Circles;" 23 again it appears in Dr. Albert Leffingwell's 
essay, "Is Science Advanced bv Deceit," published in 
1800. In 1901 Professor Bowditch called Dr. Leffing- 
well's attention to the fact that no such operation was 

Fig. 2. — Mouth-gag as used in operations about the mouth. 

ever done. In Dr. Leffingweirs collected essays entitled 
"The Vivisection Question," on page 109 of the second 
revised edition (1907), there is, in a footnote, a correc- 
tion admitting that no such operation was ever clone, 
but on page G7 of the same edition, a description of 
this same operation still appears uncorrected, six years 

23. Second Edition, p. 28. 

33 • 

after Bowditch's letter had been received and the mis- 
statement acknowledged. 

In the Antivivisection Exhibit which was shown in 
]STew York, in the winter of 1909-1910, Professor Lee 
states that there was "an oven heated by gas burners 
which contains the stuffed body of a rabbit and which 
the attendant tells you is used for the purpose of baking 
live animals to death, and this also is performed without 
anesthetics." Then to add still further pathos, the note 
at the end of the label on the oven said "gagging, 
muffling or severing of vocal organs prevents tortured 
animals giving voice aloud piteously to such terrible 
suffering." As a matter of fact, "the oven is an appa- 
ratus intended for the incineration of the . . . refuse 
of a laboratory!" I might add that it is a constant 
practice in medicine and surgery now to use various 
forms of apparatus for the purpose of "baking" an arm, 
leg or other part of the body, and lately a patient of 
mine has had her arm "baked" almost daily for weeks 
at a temperature up to 300° F. with great benefit. 

In the exhibit of the American Antivivisection Society 
in Philadelphia in Xovember, 1911, a portrait of a dog 
was shown with a large placard stating correctly that the 
dog had been stolen from its owner and sold to the 
University of Pennsylvania for experiment. It omitted 
to state the further fact, which is perfectly well known, 
that the dog was kept for identification under Eule 1 
(page 12), was claimed, identified and turned over to 
its owner and not used for experiment. Such a placard 
stating half the truth but not the whole truth inevitably 
leads the public to draw a false conclusion. 

The bodies of three dogs were also exhibited, each 
labeled "The Vivisected Product of 'a Philadelphia 
Laboratory." All show gaping wounds; one, in fact, 
has the entire abdomen and pelvis wide open. Such a 
condition is utterly incompatible with any research. 
Surgeons and physiologists when experimenting on 
animals are necessarily as scrupulously careful in their 
antiseptic technic as in operations on human beings. 
Wounds are accurately closed and carefully dressed. 
Any experimenter leaving wounds wide open and 
undressed as are those in these dogs would invite failure 
in every case, and when he published his results and had 
to confess to- a high and needless mortality, he would 
discredit himself. 

• 34 

One of these dogs shows an absurd operation in the 
neck. The great blood-vessels from the right and left 
sides of the neck have been drawn together in front of 
the windpipe and then tied — a procedure that is 
unimaginable to any surgeon. Moreover, from the wide- 
open abdomen and pelvis the following organs have been 
removed : the stomach, all the large and small intestine, 
except a portion a few inches long, the spleen, the 
pancreas, both the kidneys and the bladder. The liver, 
however, is left. Cannot even any non-medical person 
of ordinary intelligence see that if all these organs were 
really removed and, in addition, the great blood-vessels 
of the neck on both sides were really tied, thus cutting 
off almost all of. the blood-supply to the brain, and then 
the neck and the abdomen were left wide open, the death 
of the animal on the table would be inevitable? 

About a dozen medical men, all teachers in medical 
schools, after careful inspection of these dogs, unite in 
believing that all or nearly all of these mutilations must 
have been done post mortem and not during life. More- 
over, there is no evidence that these animals were really 
"vivisected," that is, operated on during life. 

Still further, granting that all these operations were 
done for research and during life, if the animals were 
etherized no pain would have been felt and no cruelty 
perpetrated. The significant omission to say anything 
as to any anesthetic, like the omission as to the restora- 
tion to its owner of the stolen dog, entirely misleads 
the public. 

Dr. Henry P. Bowditch 24 quotes an extraordinary 
statement of the late Henry Bergh, an ardent antivivi- 
sectionist. Mr. Bergh says : 

Robert MacDonald, M.D., on being questioned, declared that 
he had opened the veins of a dying person, remember, and had 
injected the blood of an animal into them many times and had 
met with brilliant success. In other words, this potenate has 
discovered the means of thwarting the decree of Providence 
when a person was dying, and snatching away from its Maker 
a soul which He had called away from earth. 

I have happily been able to rescue quite a number of 
dying persons who but for my ' timely aid would have 
been dead persons. Instead of supposing that I had 
"thwarted the decrees of Providence and snatched a 
soul from its Maker," I have always been under the 

24. Bowditch, Henry P. : Animal Experimentation, p. 72. 


impression: (1) that it was not in my feeble power to 
thwart the decrees of the Almighty, and (2) the very 
fact that I was able to save a dying person from death 
was the best evidence that the decree of Providence was 
that the patient at that time should live and not die. 

But it seems that in the catechism of antivivisection 
it is an impious crime to save the life of a dying person, 
though I suppose it is proper to save the life of a 
patient who is only "sick." 

In the Journal of Zoopliily for April, 1910, p. 44, 
under the caption "Still More Barbarity," is an editorial 
signed "C. E. W.," the initials of the editor-in-chief. 
In this editorial it is stated as to certain experiments 
of Dr. Wentworth of Boston that they were "upon 
between forty and fifty little children in the Children's 
Hospital of that city, every one of whom died after the 
performance of his operation." The "casual reader" 
would certainly understand that every one. of these forty 
to fifty children died as a result of the operation. 

Let us see what the real facts are. 25 In 1895, in a 
case of possible tuberculous meningitis, Dr. Wentworth 
did lumbar puncture in order to make a positive diag- 
nosis. Lumbar puncture consists in introducing a rather 
long hypodermic needle between the vertebras in the 
small of the back (lumbar region) and withdrawing 
some of the fluid from around the spinal cord. This 
fluid circulates freely to and fro both within the brain 
and its membranes and within the membranes of the 
spinal cord. The needle is inserted below the end of 
the spinal cord, rarely with general anesthesia, some- 
times with local anesthesia of the skin, but generally 
without even this, as the pain is slight and only 

. In 1895 this method of diagnosis was comparatively 
new. Its value was uncertain, its dangers, if any, were 
not determined. The appearance of the fluid and the 
nature of its microscopic contents in human beings were 
imperfectly known. Dr. Wentworth in this case used the 
method for diagnosis. Alarming symptoms appeared, 
but passed away. The child was proved not to have 
meningitis and "left the hospital shortly afterward per- 
fectly well." 

In order to determine whether this case was excep- 
tional, and the dangers only accidental, or always to be 
feared (which if true might compel- the entire abandon- 

25. Boston Med. and Surg. Joui\, Aug. 6 and 13, 1896. 


ment of lumbar puncture), he repeated the operation 
most cautiously at first and finally with surer faith in 
its safety and value in twenty-nine other cases. In fifteen 
of the thirty cases the puncture was expressly clone in 
order to make a diagnosis — - meningitis or other diseases 
of the brain and spinal cord being suspected. In the 
other fifteen cases, while there probably was no cerebral 
or spinal disease, it was of great importance to know 
whether examination of the cerebrospinal fluid might 
throw any unexpected side-light on these diseases, and 
if not, it would at least disclose Avhat the normal con- 
dition, appearance and microscopic contents of the 
fluid were. 

Forty-five punctures in all were made on the thirty 
children. In three cases the puncture was made after 
death. Of the twenty-seven living children, fourteen 
died. Not one of the fourteen died from the operation, 
but, as the post-mortems showed, from meningitis, 
tuberculosis, pneumonia, water on the brain, convulsions, 
etc., as is expressly stated in each case in the paper. 

But the editorial says "between forty and fifty little 
children . . . every one of whom died after the 
performance of the operation. I have before me several 
antivivisection pamphlets published in Xew York, Phila- 
delphia and Washington in which Wentworth's cases are 
narrated as cases of "human vivisection," and it is 
usually stated that "many of them died," but the reader 
would still suppose that it was as a result of the opera- 
tion. In two of these pamphlets, "brief abstracts" of 
five cases are given, usually only one to three lines long. 
The post-mortem reports published in Wentworth's 
paper showed that these five patients died from menin- 
gitis (two cases), infantile wasting, tuberculosis and 
defective development of the brain and convulsions. Yet 
the "casual reader" would inevitably suppose that they 
died from the lumbar puncture as no other cause of 
death is stated in these pamphlets. 

When Dr. Cannon pointed out the inaccuracy of the 
editorial of April, 1910, in the Journal of Zobpliilij, 
that same journal in the issue for July, 1911, p. 219, 
in a paper signed "M. F. L." (the initials of its associate 
editor) not only did not acknowledge the error, but 
practically repeated it by saying that Dr. Cannon is 
"severe on the Journal of Zobphihj for having referred 
last year to Dr. Wentwortlrs forty-five experiments on 


children and for having mentioned the fact that the 
children died after the operation." (Italics mine.) 

Is it fair dealing to give such very brief abstracts and 
omit the most important facts as is done here? In 1901 
I pointed out 16 these misstatements and what the truth 
was, but the same pamphlets have been constantly dis- 
tributed without any correction. In November, 1910, 
nearly ten years after I had exposed the matter, Dr. 
Cannon states that one of these pamphlets was sent to 
a friend of his with a letter from the president of the 
New York Antivivisection Society, saying, "You may 
rely on them as being absolutely accurate and authentic !" 
Still worse: In April, 1910, "C. E. W." enlarges the 
number from thirty to "between forty and fifty" and 
actually says that "every one" of them died, and 
"M. F. L." practically repeats the misstatement by saying 
that "the children died after the operation." 20 

-Suppose thirty friends dined together at the Bellevue- 
Stratford, then took a train and as a result of a collision 
fourteen were killed.; would a reporter, and still less an 
editor, be justified in stating in print "between forty 
and fifty friends dined last night at the Bellevue-Strat- 
ford. Every one of them died shortly after partaking of 
the dinner" entirely omitting the collision as the real 
cause of death ? 

Now after fifteen years, what has been the result of 
these investigations by Dr. Wentworth and others? 
Lumbar puncture is a thoroughly well-established means 
of diagnosis. That it is attended with practically no 
danger is shown by the fact that it is now a routine 
practice in certain diseases, even much more important 
than recording the pulse and the temperature. Holmes 27 
states that he has done the operation "over four hundred 
times and has never met with an accident." 

It is not only always done in some diseases, but is 
repeated two, three or more times in the same patient in 
cases of cerebrospinal meningitis. As I showed in my 
paper in the Ladies' Home Journal (April, 1910) the 

26. In Mrs. White's reply to this address (p. 144) she "pleads 
guilty" to the charge of misstating, as to these children, "that they 
all died," and says she "unconsciously exaggerated." On page 
143 she states that she is "most particular to avoid not only false- 
hood, but even exaggeration." It is hardly correct to say that the 
statement that there were "between forty and fifty children" and 
that "they all died" is an "exaggeration" of the real fact, namely, 
that there were only twenty-seven living children operated on, and 
of the fourteen who died not one of them died from the operation, 
but from well-known causes revealed by the post-mortem examina- 
tions and fully stated, in each case, in Dr. Wentworth's paper. 

27. Holmes! Arch. Tediat., October, 1908, p. 738. 


son of then governor, now Mr. Justice Hughes, of the 
United States Supreme Court, a student at Brown Uni- 
versity /stricken with a violent attack of the epidemic form 
of the disease, had lumbar puncture done three times; 
the first time in order to make a diagnosis and also for 
the injection of Flexner's serum, the second and third 
times for two other injections of the serum, which 
snatched him from otherwise practically certain death. 

In this disease, Eoyer 28 says : "It is absolutely neces- 
sary to do a lumbar puncture" to make a diagnosis, and 
Dunn 29 says emphatically, "Without lumbar puncture a 
diagnosis of cerebrospinal meningitis is absolutely with- 
out value for scientific, statistical or therapeutic pur- 
poses." As there are half a dozen different forms of 
meningitis, and the remedy for the deadly epidemic 
form is of no use in the other forms, lumbar puncture, 
the only absolutely positive means of- differentiating 
them, cannot be dispensed with. 

Moreover, its use has been broadened, as shown in the 
case of young Mr. Hughes. No longer are we content 
to use it merely as a means of diagnosis, but it is the 
only means of successful treatment of that terribly fatal 
malady. It is also used for diagnosis in several surgical 
diseases and injuries. Moreover, the method of spinal 
anesthesia, which is most useful in cases in which other 
methods of anesthesia are too dangerous, is exclusively 
by means of lumbar puncture, the cocain or other local 
anesthetic being injected around the spinal cord by the 
hypodermic syringe. 30 

When a witness is called, it is not allowable for the 
party calling him to accept a part of his testimony and 
refuse to accept the rest, yet this is precisely what the 
opponents of research do. They always eite, for example, 
the late Professor Bigelow, printing his earlier utter- 
ances based on the suffering he saw at Alfort in the 
preanesthetic days, but they carefully omit the following 
later expression of opinion: 31 

28. Royer : Arch. Pediat., October, 1908, p. 729. 

29. Dunn, Charles Hunter : Am. Jour. Dis. Child., February, 1911, 
p. 95. 

30. Those who wish to consult by far the best statement for gen- 
eral use of the steps by which epidemic meningitis has been con- ' 
quered and the results of the new but now thoroughly well-estab- 
lished serum treatment by lumbar puncture can obtain a cony of 
Dunn's paper on this subject (No. 21 of this series) by enclosing 
4 cents (or 50 cents for twenty-five copies) to the Journal of the 
American Medical Association, Chicago. 

31. Bigelow, Henry J. : Anesthesia : Addresses and Other Papers, 
Boston, 1900, p. 371. 


The dissection of an animal in a state of insensibility is no 
more to be criticized than is the abrupt killing of it, to which 
no one objects. The confounding of a painful vivisection and 
an experiment which does not cause pain — either because the 
animal is under ether, or because the experiment itself is pain- 
less,' like those pertaining to the action of most drugs, or 
because it is a trivial one and gives little suffering — has done 
great damage to the cause of humanity, and has placed the 
opponent of vivisection at a great disadvantage. ... A 
painless experiment on an animal is unobjectionable. 

So, too, when the statements of Horsley, Ott, Crile 
and others that the animals were anesthetized and suf- 
fered no pain are shown to antiviviseetionists, they reply, 
"We do not believe it, for the only testimony to this 
insensibility to pain is that of the vivisectors themselves." 
They greedily accept as true all their other statements 
as to the operations they did, etc., down to the minutest 
details, but they refuse to accept those as to anesthesia. 
!No court of law would sanction such a course. 

In reviewing the preceding misstatements and those 
quoted in my former paper 10 I have been compelled to 
conclude that it is not safe to accept any statement 
which appears in antivivisection literature as true, or 
any quotation or translation as correct, until I have 
compared them with the originals and verified their 
accuracy for myself. Xot seldom this is impossible, as 
no reference to the volume, month, day or sometimes 
even the year of publication is given. 

Lest the reader think this too severe a statement I 
will refer to only one instance in the anonymous 
pamphlet, '"Human Vivisection," in addition to others 
already shown to be grossly inaccurate. 

On page 9 in the account of Sanarelli's five experi- 
ments in the endeavor to inoculate yellow fever, the 
phrase "'the final collapse" appears as an alleged transla- 
tion of the original Italian. The word * final" does not 
occur in the original Moreover, the collapse was not 
"final," for every one of the five patients recovered, yet 
the pamphlet says that "some if not all of them, died." 
The phrases "scientific murder" and "scientific assassin- 
ation" are also freely used. Even the cover and the 
title-page of this pamphlet have as a motto, "Is scientific 
murder a pardonable crime?" As not a single patient 
died, were they really "murdered" or "assassinated" ? 



In thirty years the sixteen [British] antivivisection 
societies have received more than £100,000 ($500,000) 
according to Mr. Stephen Coleridge's testimony before 
the Boyal Commission on Vivisection (Questions 10256 
to 10260). The American societies have had many 
bequests given to them, and in the aggregate must have 
also spent a large sum of money. 

On the other side, the friends of research and progress 
have had little money, have had to stop research and 
waste a deal of precious time in defending their benefi- 
cent researches from the attacks of the antivivisection- 
ists; the rest of the time they have quietly gone about 
their business, adding to the sum of our knowledge and 
forging new and more efficient weapons against disease 
and death. 

What, then, is the net result? What have the friends 
of research accomplished, and what achievements can 
the foes of research show? Let me put it in a con- 
trasted tabular form and confine it to what has occurred 
during my own professional life. 


1. They have discovered and developed the antiseptic 
method and so have made possible all the wonderful 
results of modern surgery. 

2. They have made possible practically all modern 
abdominal surgery, including operations on the stomach, 
intestines, appendix, liver, gall-stones, pancreas, spleen, 
kidneys; etc. 

3. They have made possible all the modern surgery 
of the brain. 

•4. They have recently made possible a new surgery 
of the chest, including the surgery of the heart, lungs, 
aorta, esophagus, etc. 

5. They have almost entirely abolished lockjaw after 
operations and even after accidents. 

6. They have reduced the death-rate after compound 
fractures from two out of three, i. e., sixty-six in a 
hundred, to less than one in a hundred. 

7. Thev have reduced the death-rate of ovariotomy 
from two out of three, or sixty-six in a hundred, to two 
or three out of a hundred. 

8. They have made the death-rate after operations 
like hernia, amputation of the breast and of most tumors 
a negligible factor. ■ 


9. They have abolished yellow fever — a wonderful 
triumph. 32 

10. They have enormously diminished the ravages of 
the deadly malaria, and its abolition is only a matter 
of time. 

11. They have reduced the death-rate of hydrophobia 
from 12 or 11 per cent, of persons bitten to 0.77 per cent. 

12. They have devised a method- of direct transfusion 
of blood which has already saved very many lives. 

13. They have cut down the death-rate in diphtheria 
all over the civilized world. In nineteen European and 
American cities it has fallen from 79.9 deaths per 
hundred thousand of population in 1891, when the anti- 
toxin treatment was begun, to nineteen deaths per hun- 
dred thousand in 1905 — less than one-quarter of its 
death-rate before the introduction of the antitoxin. 

11. They have reduced the mortality of cerebrospinal 
meningitis from 75 or even 90 odd per cent, to 20 per 
cent, and less. 

15. They have made operating for goiter almost per- 
fectly safe. 

1G. They have assisted in cutting down the death- 
. rate of tuberculosis by from 30 to 50 per cent, for Koch's 
discovery of the tubercle bacillus is the cornerstone of 
all our modern sanitary achievements. 

17. In the British Army and Navy they have abolished 
Malta fever, which in 1905, before their researches, 
attacked nearly 1,300 soldiers and sailors. In 1907 there 
were in the army only eleven cases; in 1908, five cases; 
in 1909, one case. 

18. They have almost abolished childbed fever, the 
chief former peril of maternity, and have reduced its 
mortality from five or ten up even to fifty-seven in every 
hundred mothers to one in 1,250 mothers. 

19. They have very recently discovered a remedy 
which bids fair to protect innocent wives and unborn 
children, besides many others in the community at large, 
from the horrible curse of syphilis. 

20. They have discovered a vaccine against typhoid 
fever, which among soldiers in camps has totally abolished 

32. Mrs. White in her letter (p. 144) argues that this statement 
is incorrect because, forsooth, yellow fever "is still flourishing in a 
number of places in South America, Central America and Mexico." 
Of course it is, but all the world knows that if they adopted the 
methods of Colonel Gorgas in the Canal Zone, yellow fever would 
soon be banished from these other places. Since May 17, 1906 (now 
[October, 1912] almost six and a half years ago), Dot a single case 
of yellow fever has originated on the isthmus ! 


typhoid fever, as President Taft has so recently and so 
convincingly stated. . The improved sanitation which has 
helped to do this is itself largely the result of bac- 
teriologic experimentation. 

21. They are gradually nearing the discovery of the 
cause, and then we hope of the cure, of those dreadful 
scourges of humanity, cancer, infantile paralysis and 
other children's diseases. 

Who that loves his fellow creatures would dare to stay 
the hands of the men who may lift the curse of infantile 
paralysis, scarlet fever and measles from our children 
and of cancer from the whole race? If there be such 
cruel creatures, enemies of our children and of humanity, 
let them stand up and be counted. 

22. As Sir Frederick Treves has stated, it has been 
by experiments on animals that our knowledge of the 
pathology, methods of transmission and the means of 
treatment of the fatal "sleeping-sickness" of Africa has 
been obtained and is being increased. 

23. They have enormously benefited animals by dis- 
covering the causes and in many cases the means of 
preventing tuberculosis, rinderpest, anthrax, glanders, 
hog cholera, chicken cholera, lumpy jaw and other dis- 
eases of animals, some of which also attack man. If 
the suffering dumb creatures could but speak, they too 
would pray that this good work should still continue 


Not a single human life has been saved by their efforts. 

Not a single beneficent discovery, has been made by 

Not a single disease has been abated or abolished by 

All that they have done is to resist progress — to 
spend .$500,000 in thirty years in Great Britain alone, 
and very large amounts of money in the United States 
■ — and to conduct a campaign of abuse and gross mis- 

They apparently care little or nothing for the con- 
tinued suffering and death of human beings, the grief 
and not seldom the ensuing poverty of their families, 
provided that twenty-six out of every thousand dogs 
and cats, monkeys and guinea-pigs, mice and frogs 
experimented on shall escape some physical suffering. 

They insist, therefore, that all experimental research 
on animals shall stop and — astounding cruelty — that 


thousands of human beings shall continue year after 
year to suffer and to die. 

The Age of Experiment is the Age of Progress. This 
is true in mechanics, in engineering, in electricity, in 
every department of human knowledge in which experi- 
mental investigation is possible. 

Medicine is no exception. Stop experiment and you 
stop progress. But while stopping progress in other 
departments only means' that we shall have no further 
development in the external comforts and conveniences 
of life, the arrest of the experimental method in medicine 
means that progress in the knowledge of the cause and 
cure of disease shall stop and that our present sufferings 
and sorrowful bereavements from the onslaught of can- 
cer, scarlet fever, measles, whooping-cough and all the 
other foes of health and life — especially of our dear 
children — must continue. 

In the last fifty years we have made more progress 
than in the preceding fifty centuries. I believe that if 
experimental research is continued and aided, the next 
fifty years will be still more prolific of benefit to man- 
kind than even the past fifty. 

I have absolute confidence in the humanitj r , the intelli- 
gence and the common sense of this nation that they 
will see to it that this progress shall not be halted by 
the outcries and misstatements of the antivivisectionists. 

Dr. S. Weil" Mitchell, when visiting the Antivivisec- 
tion Exhibition in Philadelphia, put the matter in a 
nutshell Avhen he said to one of the guides, "Your 
exhibition is not quite complete. You should place here 
a dead baby and there a dead guinea-pig with the motto, 
"Choose between them.'*? 3 

33. Of course, not all antivivisectionists are to be grouped with 
those who are responsible for the letters, the epithets and the per- 
sistent misstatements mentioned in this paper. I have, for example, 
some most esteemed personal friends who are more or less opposed 
to research by means of experiments on animals. But I believe 
that most of the reasonable persons who take this stand are not 
well informed, either as to the character of such researches, to 
their profound importance to the human race and to animals, or to 
their wonderfully beneficent results. They are misled by the mis- 
statements of the chief antivivisectionists, and their kindly hearts 
are so shocked by the asserted "torture" of dogs, cats, etc., that they 
lose sight of the real and horrible torture inflicted on human beings 
by diseases which the advocates of research are endeavoring to 
banish. Had they ever stood as in the past I have stood, knife in hand, 
by the bedside of a gasping livid child struggling for breath, ready 
to do a tracheotomy when the surely tightening grip of diphtheria 
made it necessary to interfere, they would hail with delight the 
blessed antitoxin which has abolished the knife and enormously 
diminished tbe mortality of that curse of childhood. They would 
surely bless God that such a discovery as this antitoxin could be 
made solely by experiments on animals. The sufferings of a few 
such animals is as nothing compared with the lessening of suffer- 
ing and saving of life for multitudes of human beings (to say 
nothing of the saving of sorrow and suffering to their families 
and friends), not only now, but for all time to come. 


Medical Fakes and Fakers 

Consumption Cure Fakes 

The ten different preparations discussed in this pam- 
phlet were originally dealt with in The Journal of 
the American Medical Association. The matter has 
been somewhat elaborated, several illustrations added 
and the whole reprinted and attractively bound in stiff 
paper cover. The various fakes dealt with are : 

Aicsol (Lloyd) * 

Nature's Creation * 

J. Lawrence Hill, M.D.* 

Hoff's Cure 


International Institute * 

[*This matter also appears in indi 

Lung Germine * 
Yonkermann's "Tuberculo- 

zyne" * 
Wilson's Cure 
Oxidaze — Oleozone — Jlijdro- 

cine * 

idual pamphlet form, price 4 cents] 

Cancer Fakes 

The United States government has, within the last 
two or three years, investigated a number of concerns 
exploiting so-called cures for cancer. In practically 
every case these companies have been declared fraud- 
ulent and the use of the United States mails denied 
them. This pamphlet contains the exposes of the fol- 
lowing concerns : 

Rupert Wells » Dr. and Mrs. Chamlee d Co.* 

Q. M. Curry * B. F. Bye } 

Drs. Mixer * W. O. Bye \ * 

T oxo- Absorbent Company * L. T. Leach] 

[*This matter also appears in individual pamphlet form, price 4 cents] 

Medical Institutes 

Some of the cruelest frauds perpetrated by quacks 
are those carried on under the name of Medical 
Institutes. This pamphlet deals with three frauds of 
this kind — 

Wisconsin Medical Institute Epileptic Institute 
Boston and Bellevue Institute 

Convictions Under the Food and Drugs Act 

The convictions that the government has obtained 
against the adulterators of drugs and similar prep- 
arations are described technically in official documents 
known as "Notices of Judgment." One hundred and 
forty-eight of these cases are here abstracted in popu- 
lar form. 

(continued on back cover) 

Prices of these four pamphlets assorted as desired : 
One copy, 6 cents ; five copies, 25 cents ; ten copies, 40 
cents ; twenty-five copies, 75 cents. 

Stamps acceptable for amounts under fifty cents. 




Medical Fakes and Fakers - (Continued) 


A concern sells nostrums for "female trouble." 


A fake cure for drunkenness. 


Cottage cheese as an elixir of life. 

A fraudulent "consumption cure." 

Dr. Branaman 
A "cure for deafness" fraud in Kansas City, Mo: 

Murine Eye Remedy 

The modern Colonel Sellers. 

Mrs. Cora B. Miller 

A mail-order medical fraud in Kokomo, Ind. 
Carnegie University 

A fraudulent "school*' that sells diplomas for $50. 

Fake Gall-Stone Cures 

"Fruitola" and "Mayr's Stomach Remedy." 

Carson's Temple of Health 

A Kansas City fakery. 

Stuart's Plas-Tr-Pads and J. B. L. Cascade 

Two fraudulently exploited mechanical devices. 

Woods' Cure for Drunkenness 

An international fake fraudulently sold. 

The Bertha C. Day Company 

A mail-order medical concern of Fort Wayne, Ind. 

The Interstate Remedy Company 

A mail-order fake with a "free recipe" bait. 
The Oxydonor and Similar Fakes 

The gas-pipe therapy frauds. 

Press Agents and Preservatives 

How the borax trust tries to mold public opinion. 

Van Bysterveld Medicine Company 
A fraudulent Grand Rapids, Mich., concern. 

American College of Mechano-Therapy 

A correspondence school of "curative mechanics." 

Marforie Hamilton's Obesity Cure 

A widely advertised fat-reduction humbug. 

Prices of these nineteen pamphlets, assorted as de- 
sired : One copy, 4 cents ; five copies, 15 cents ; ten 
copies. 25 cents ; twenty-five copies, 50 cents. All post- 
paid. Stamps acceptable for amounts under 50 cents.